Author Topic: The post-reaction workup: a cook's summary  (Read 13074 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Guest
> Osmium, Geez has never put you down and...
« Reply #40 on: April 25, 2003, 03:12:00 PM »
> Osmium, Geez has never put you down and as a matter of
> fact he has backed you up on several occasions.

And? What's your point?
Are you trying to tell me I shouldn't speak the truth because I might hurt anyones feelings?

> Yet, you criticize him for no reason whatsoever.

I'm not criticizing him. I'm criticizing ALL OF YOU (or rather nobody in particular).
And the reason for me doing so is that you guys make this shit way too complicated. I'd post the same if geez' post had been written by Rhodium or Shulgin himself.

> Just remember if it weren’t for people like Geez, odds
> are you wouldn't know anything either.  It certainly took
> a person with his qualities to put up with a student like
> you.



  • Guest
more water
« Reply #41 on: April 25, 2003, 03:33:00 PM »
SQuidippy: I add about three times the volume of water to the honey after the reaction filtering out the rP, so we use about the same amount. I think the point that Os made was to dilute even further than that when diluting the solution, making the honey solution less strongly acidic by this dilution, then wash with non-polar solvent; even more crap should come out than comes out now. He also points out that boiling out the Iodine is really an unnecessary step as the nonpolar solvent washes will remove most of it and basing with sodium hydroxide will convert any left to sodium iodide before the meth is extracted. 

The acetone he refers to in the gassing discussion is acetone used to rinse the meth HCl after it is filtered out of the solvent. Add the rinse acetone back to the solvent containing the freebase meth and continue to gas the solvent. The added acetone will not impair the process in the least. 

Os: The nonpolar washes will remove elemental iodine from the honey, if I understand that correctly. There will be trash in the non-polar solvent also. How would one recover the iodine from the non-polar solvent? Evaporation? Is there a better method? Or is the amount to be recovered too small to merit recovery in a typical reaction? The only thing that I thought of was to allow the solvent to evaporate and sublime the solids left after it evaporated for the I2. Any comments?


  • Guest
Maybe to you
« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2003, 04:23:00 PM »
I'm not criticizing him. I'm criticizing ALL OF YOU (or rather nobody in particular).
And the reason for me doing so is that you guys make this shit way too complicated. I'd post the same if geez' post had been written by Rhodium or Shulgin himself.

Did you even read my post?  Most of us don't have any formal education in chemistry.  We do not have the time/money to go and learn the right way.  Therefore it is complicated to us!  Or are you saying that we are all just stupid and you are the only one with any intelligence? 

Give any experienced cook lab grade chemicals and pharmaceutical grade pseudo and tell him you want no less than 80% yeild in by the end of the week.  He'll be knocking on your door with 90% by wenesday.  On the other hand give a chemist a case of matches, a few boxes of the latest pills, some driveway cleaner, iodine tincture, drain cleaner, a few jars, hotplate from a dollar store and ask him to bring you no less than a gram of good quality meth.  Don't hold your breath waiting though.

If we had access to the proper precursors then we would not need to have these discussions.  I would rather learn from an old cook who has never stepped foot in a chemistry class.

You once said that you could teach anyone in a day how to make meth.  I agree, but unfortunately making meth is illegal so therefore we are unlikely to find a meth making class.  There is a big difference between showing someone something and having only text as a means of learning.  Especially when the text is not always right and the variables change with every reaction depending on the pill formulations, how clean the mbrp is, etc...

Is is really that difficult to say "nice job".  I have asked you this before but never received an answer.  Do you make meth on a regular basis and if so do you use otc pseudo?


  • Guest
« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2003, 04:31:00 PM »
O.K. thanx Geez, now S/D understands.



  • Guest
HTML version uploaded
« Reply #44 on: April 27, 2003, 09:09:00 PM »


  • Guest
-reaction workup: a cook's summary"
« Reply #45 on: April 29, 2003, 03:52:00 PM »
Well done Geez...As the new guy on the block I've been diligently reading my ass off for the last few months and I'd say this one article single handedly defines what this group is all about....hardwork,dedication, and unselfish sharing of adeas , advice, and sincere concern for their peers.I think I've come to the right place .THANKS AGAIN Geez for all your hard work and all of the many..many members who have laid all the ground work .


  • Guest
Rhodium: this HTMLized thing needs to be ...
« Reply #46 on: April 30, 2003, 12:50:00 PM »
Rhodium: this HTMLized thing needs to be updated with my less verbose no bullshit version.  ;)   :P


  • Guest
« Reply #47 on: May 01, 2003, 10:17:00 PM »
Os: It will, in the meantime I have added both geez's and your version to the FAQ at the top of this thread.


  • Guest
Damn if fate don't fuck my mind sometimes:)
« Reply #48 on: November 20, 2003, 09:02:00 AM »
I dreamed of this very post a month ago having no idea who had written it but knowing that it fit into my path. I can't remember where In my dream I found it but I remember thinking "this is way beyond my abilities" now in my dreams I can almost see the profile of it on the horizon. Still not understanding totally what it is yet just knowing that soon...I will


  • Guest
« Reply #49 on: November 20, 2003, 05:04:00 PM »
I have little formal education (High school diploma while incarcerated-cheated too), yet I would not want Os to change his (or is it her?) style! I love the sarchasim, and this forum is well contributed to by others needed for balance, as evidenced by this thread. Those aspiring to excelence are spured by your flames. Fire away. (keep kicking my ass)

 I'm begining to believe that noze first rxn will actually be sucessful....a fantasy of course.


  • Guest
Letting the based goodz sit
« Reply #50 on: June 23, 2004, 02:14:00 AM »
Swim thought that this would be the most appropriate thread to place this little bit of advice another bee gave him that has, in the long run helped him achieve many excellent yeilds from less than pristene feedstock runs.

My point is this, with all of our gakks out today with the Eudrashit being the worst at the moment, sometimes one thinks their feedstock pfed is pristene when there is still some gakk in it.

The best way to battle these gakks post-rxn(assuming one does Geez or Osmium's workup correctly) IMHO, is to let the based goods sit for up to a week(Xylene is swims solvent of choice for the waiting period), after the first pull,usually done with hot naptha or mineral spirits.  With swim's method(using large amounts of solvents and water, ala Jacked) he usually nets 60 to 70 percent of his final yeild in the first pull anyhow.

I know this has been discussed before, but as of late gluecifer has reaped the benefits of employing the waiting game more than ever.

Hope this doesn't earn a redundant rating, but it has saved swims ass alot, in the last month or two.

Also bees, don't forget to recycle that  iodine, refer to VE's method here 

Post 463056 (missing)

(VideoEditor: "Another look at Iodine recovery...", Stimulants)

Here is another valuble post rxn link, that is not often metioned enough here, that Gluecifer employs-

Post 428987

(Osmium: "Saving solvents: Countercurrent extraction/washing", Stimulants)

Hope this can bee of help to somebee!


EDIT:Swim does mean that this can be a substitute for clean pfed, but when shit happens, patience will pay off.